Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 17 November 1922, Page 2

The improved attendance at the public meeting at the Opera House last night, indicated an enlivening interest in the political contest for the Westland seat. Mr O’Brien, the Labor candidate, had a good hearing and a good meeting. There was an air of sweet reasonableness about the address, hut not quite as much ground as usual, nor 111" usual was travelled over. Mr O’Brien spent some time in reading extracts from speeches of the late K. J. Seddou. They were good to hear. If only Labour would read more of them, and con them over, they would have a saner policy to propound. Labor .should read something of the late Mr Seddon’s Imperial speeches, his love and devotion for his country, and his untiring zeal to keep, the Motherland in the forefn.nl! .Air Seddou pursued the Liberal policy, which he took up up from his old friend Sir George Grey, and that policy was for all and not for a class. Thu greatest note Mr Seddou ever struck was his humanity legislatirn in 1!KI5, which was for na-tion-wide benefit. Whereon Labor is prepared to imitate or follow the late Mr Seddou, it will not go far astray for it is leading along the lines of the sound Liberal policy, which can never die. As Mr Wilford defined itat Auckland the other night: “Lioeralism amounted to almost a faith, and it refused to recognise class. It was inclusive and not - exclusive.”

firs weakness of the Labor policy as defined by Mr O’Brien last night, was that it was distinctly for a class, and while Mr O’Brien professed to ah.-or martial war. (as who does not ?) he would aid and abet a class win. a continual pulling down of the social fabric, by seuing class against class, and not a building up by giving to oacb and all the opportunity to excel in whatever walk of life they uro fitted for. the amelioration of the workers’ conditions ; ciune from the Liberals who were al- j ways trying to build tip and not to |. ill d n. there are often complaints

about party systems, but there is no party more exclusive than the Labor party, and which at best is not ruled by the voice of the people it is supposed to be so much devoted to, but by nil inner circle or caucus the impress of which is final. Even Mr O’Brien’s choice as candidate depended on thci Labor Parliamentary Council at Wellington, and to that extent his independence is limited, and liis aspirations moulded for him. Mr O’Brien’s address was most remarkable for wliat he did not say along the usual lines which Labor’s political adress usually run. The moderation in tone ,however was only a pose, for at question time there was the hint at extreme action which would be considered rather revolutionary than evolutional

This is election time, and when Labour candidates are appealing to all and sundry for votes and support, they nationlv modify their views to the. fullest. But the general trend of the party cause Mr O’Brien espouses, is well known. So far as \\ estland is concerned from the day of R. J. Seddon—and even before, and right down to tine present—Westland has stood foremost for its loyalty and regard for country. The world’s happenings of late years, and at the present time, indicate that the Commonwealth of Nations is far remote. It indicates that each nation must have a. sound defence system, not for aggression, but as an insurance against aggression, and to protect the national liberties its jicopio enjoy. The internationalism of which so much is heard front the Labor platform, is far too visionary for any sane nation respecting its rights and liberties to put its trust in. On that ground alone the Labor party is not deserving of any encouragement to promote such a policy. It is a suicidal policy cutting into the veiv l'le of the nation. There remains lortunatclv th(> Liberal policy. always sound and safe. It was the party that niado New Zealand in the past, and ■riven the opportunity it will be the party to make it in the future.

It is the pleasure of the Reform party and its press, as also of Labor, to 10mark ill season and out, that the Liberals are “down and out.” We bad Mr Steer here saying the same thing last week. As a matter of fact. . » rough count of the candidates now in shows 79 Reform candidates. 60 Liberals and 45 Labor. The Liberals are thus very much alive and concentrating on the sixty seats for which they have candidates, are going to yin Ice a good showing at the polls and will go back to Parliament a stronger force than before. Mr Seddon emphasised this view at Greymouth last week and we notice that Mr Steer has already changed his mind and speaking rt Totara Flat the other evening, according to a liewspape, report. said that the Liberals were not dead, but that Mr Massey claimed he led the Liberals! Mr Steer’s prompt correction of his fomer mistake is at least something to his credit, but his claim that Mr Mussev leads the true Liberals is one of those queer stories some politicians delight to tell on the- hustings in out of tiie wav places. Mr Massey a Liberal! It was related only yesterday how Mr Masosv and his principal henchmen had voted against the Liberal legislation initiated for the benefit of the farmers in providing land and cheap money to take it up. We are tempted now to quote the record of Massey and party on the Old Age Pensions Bill to show what their liberalism (?) was like when the true Liberals were fighting the battles of the aged on the floor of the House. Here is the record of the Reform party on that humanitarian measure, and the number of divisions indicates tlie strenuous character of the opposition the late Mr Seddon hud to contend with to get the great piece of legislntio to the statute book ; Sir J. Allen—79 times against, 8 times for. and 13 times did not vote.

Sir W. Buchanan—Bl times against. 9 times for. and 8 times did not vote.

Sir AT. Fraser—s 7 times against. 17 . times for. and 26 times did not f vote. • I Sir W. Herries—B3 times agajmst, 1 10 times for, and 7 times Aid not vote. Sir F. Lang—-85 times against, 10 times for. and 5 times did not vo{". Rt. ITon. Massey—B7 times against, 9 times for and 4 times.did not j vote. Mr Hunter—66 times against, 14 : times for and 17 times did not I vote. Hansard proof such as the foregoing indicates Mr Mussov’s “Liberal” in stinets when first called upon for a law to benefit the masses.